Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    September 26, 2011 12:30am-1:00am PDT

12:30 am
phone calls. we had to contact his boss to ask him to return the call. prior to may 2011, we did not have any reason to go to the planning department, because he was working on an acceptable solution they said. we are opposing the project in closure -- enclosure. these two light wells are larger than most in san francisco. they were being used by previous residence as patio's with barbecue grills and other seating and planters. this has been granted since 1960, approximately 51 years ago. this is about 100 years plus. they are not removing large property line walls and increasing them. they are building wallace at the property line adjacent to the bedroom, dining room, and there
12:31 am
are nose sections showing any details or relationships of their deck wall -- there are no sections. another exhibit shows only a floor plan, and this deck is being built above their grade, which is about 3 feet above ours. the architect's drawings are confusing and very limited information on them and are misrepresenting our windows as well as wallace. there are no open spaces. this is covered by decks. there are vegetables and stairwa-- there are vestibules d stairways. there is the 2010 variance. we were not aware of such variance. they kept telling us they are working on a solution to present to us.
12:32 am
vice president garcia: you put in for a change of address to jackson? >> right. vice president garcia: why did you not list the other address rather than the address on jackson? >> because that is another property of ours that we receive mail also. vice president garcia: where do you live? ok, explain to me what you did not arrange to have the notice sent to there? >> because our tax records and everything goes there to jackson street. vice president garcia: and is there some provision that you are aware of that the city requires that you list your permanent address or notices, or am i mistaken about that? >> we consider that also our dress -- our dress. i work in this city, and she comes to the city, so we checked
12:33 am
our mail there, and it makes us stop by there. vice president garcia: and you attended one pre-application meeting? >> yes. vice president garcia: and that did not have to do with the variance? >> yes. vice president garcia: so you were aware of the project, but you're not aware of the fact that they're going to be hearings dealing with the two various is. ok, thanks. -- the two variances. commissioner hwang: at what point did you determine that you were locked out of your own property? >> well, we knew that we did not have access to it, but we just saw the reality of the walls against our windows. the tenants moved out, so we went to receive it. the actual walls against our window. commissioner hwang: at what
12:34 am
point were you locked out of the building? you said they changed the locks? >> we knew that -- we were told that because of their security and safety or whatever. we did not see any reason to go in there. commissioner hwang: did you have access to your own building? >> we did not. commissioner hwang: did you attempt to have access to your building? >> no, for the same reason. commissioner hwang: at the time you believe you saw a wall built, when was that? >> right, i believe that was in june. commissioner hwang: and you used in this building as your primary address for the purpose of getting notices from the city? >> yes. commissioner hwang: and you work for the city, and your wife
12:35 am
comes to the city? and the first time you saw the work being performed was when the wall was already built? >> no, we have known about this construction for quite a long time. the tenants, the developers, we saw the reality of that wall right against our window. there were pictures. in our documents. and what i did not get to say here, in my last comments, what you're asking for is only 10 feet, cutting into the two light wells, which below them, there is really nothing of importance. there are spaces underneath them. a few weeks ago when we saw it, it was just framing. it is not like they are going to lose any. commissioner hwang: but you are here on the jurisdiction of request, not done timely.
12:36 am
my question is to understand what was going on. those were my questions. so i think you answered them. vice president garcia: and you were aware that the people you're renting to were associated with the project that were going -- a project that was going on? let me finish. and those of the same people that you tried to make an arrangement with that may not have been in any good position to forward mail to you? >> yes. vice president garcia: ok, and then you discover the wall had been built sometime in june. >> yes. vice president garcia: when in june? early june? >> do not hold me to be exact date. i believe it was maybe early june. that is when their lease has expired, so we went there to receive the property and to list it again for renting it.
12:37 am
vice president garcia: and when did you file the jurisdiction request? >> i am not sure. i cannot give you a date. it should be in the documents. vice president garcia: how soon after that discovery in june? director goldstein: august 30. vice president garcia: what happened? >> we were trying to work with mr. butler and the other. the developers, to see what could be worked out to remove these walls that are against our property. we had meetings with them. they said they would work on a solution. but nothing happened. vice president garcia: all right, thank you, sir. president goh: thank you. director goldstein: thank you. we can hear from the other side now. >> good afternoon, president goh, members of the board.
12:38 am
i am -- and we are working with the project sponsors and have been in the last couple of years on the variances and other things. we have submitted almost everything we could find, so our submittal is pretty complete, but included in that submittal is information about this jurisdiction request, which is 13 months late and seven months after the fact with respect to the building permit, and request for late in jurisdiction is extraordinary under any circumstances, but in these circumstances, it does not come close to meeting these. there is no adequate explanation for waiting this long for coming here and making this request. it is in the documents, but to remind you, the petitioners are both experienced, knowledgeable, and sophisticated. they are an engineer and architect, respectively, a husband and wife team, going back as far as march 2006, there is an attachment to their own
12:39 am
document that is a communication about their own project that they were doing next door and the property that became the tendency of the owners of the project. in that letter at the end, it says, what is the appeal process? they are sophisticated and need to be responsible enough to find out what the process really does consist of. our submittal is replete with exhibits reflecting ongoing and constant communication with them, such as emails, copies of plans, including a sign up sheet for the pre-application meeting that commissioner garcia noted. that was april 14, 2010. that was 17 months ago.
12:40 am
i would just invite you to flip through the tabs, a through p. others are here and will confirm the extent of the ongoing discussions. jim is a contractor, who would prefer not to speak, though i think he might after hearing what the testimony just was. the petitioners make the claim that they did not receive notices. we have no way to know if they received the pieces of paper or not, but that is not the standard. as discussed fully in the submittal, the petitioners were properly sent notices, and the affidavits are included in the exhibits. in fact, there is no claim by the petitioners that the notices were not sent. the problem is they did not provide the city with accurate information as to where those notices should go. and more to the point, at least more for the purposes of your consideration, they had actual notice of every aspect of this project. it is on the corner of presidio
12:41 am
in jackson. you cannot drive that corner without seeing a very large construction projects going on. as some of you have. there is simply nothing here that the possibly justify the petitioners, who are an engineer and architect, waiting 13 months and seven months to file this for jurisdiction. finally, we have include a discussion of vested rights in our document. -- we have included a discussion. i am sure you have heard this many times before, but we have relied substantially on a validly issued a permit and are well underway on construction. the building construction is over 50% complete, and more than $1 million has been spent. vice president garcia: if i could question you first? can we stop the time? would you turn to your exhibit -- not exist, but your brief, on page seven?
12:42 am
we did not exhibit, but your brief, page seven? -- not the exhibit. the notice that was sent on august 14, 2009, is that for a hearing in july 2010? >> i am sorry. where are you? vice president garcia: i am on page seven. >> august 14. vice president garcia: and that notice was sent for which variance hearing? commissioner fung: give you one
12:43 am
-- vice president garcia: i am sorry. i apologize. i think they -- i had thought they had given year -- given you. >> we will have the person who knows answer the question. >> good evening, my name is liz butler, and i and the architect at 104 presidio ave. i have a copy in front of me. it does highlight in yellow actual meetings or phone calls with the hernatis. commissioner fung: sir, you have to stop for a moment. was a copy of this given to the appellants? >> there were six or seven copies provided.
12:44 am
there is one here, too. vice president garcia: mr. butler, why do you not go ahead and use whatever time you need, since you will be the person to do this anyway? >> ok, the timeline. in front of you is a timeline, explaining as clearly as possible the juxtaposition of meetings with them, and the permit numbers are included. i hope this helps in itself. i think the big dates that you can see, august 17, 2009, there was a meeting with the hernatis. there was an excavation in the rear yard. that may be an answer.
12:45 am
those on the opposite corner are also clients of mine. as we get towards the courtyard variance, you will see quite a few with them after that. i will summarize. what is important, and i will be the details for your questions. these variances reduce the bulk in the rear yard. we took down part of the building and opened up like space in the rear yard. the light was referred to were the old ones, and they were, indeed, filled in, -- the light wells referred to were the old ones. they were frankly overbalanced by the open space, which was accomplished by knocking down that part. our discussion has further reduced the obstructions in the rear yard.
12:46 am
it does not even require a variance anymore. all work was complying with the planning and building codes. i have not seen this board since 1999. it is simply not our habit. we often overreach, and i hope this demonstrates that. commissioner peterson: what is your reaction to the suggestion of the appellant prove they want to reduce the light well about 10 feet? >> we covered this extensively in the various process. this building has three two- story wings that go up. we lowered the middle wing by one story and brought up the light wells by one story, creating a platform, a garden at the middle of the building. the light wells in question were
12:47 am
down. i have been to their house many, many times. and the middle of the building, which used to not get any light at all is now flooded with light. this is a puzzle to us, because we see this as a gesture of the open space, and they do not see it that way. commissioner peterson: thank you. vice president garcia: ok, the jurisdiction is being applied for on one variance and one building permit? >> it seems so. it is really not two things but one. there is some more detail there, although that detail is rendered irrelevant, because the part of the variance that was in the building permit in the fine of that stair is not a variance anymore.
12:48 am
this was in return for a lot more open space. vice president garcia: the variance? >> correct. vice president garcia: exhibit g, these are not dated, right? if you go to your exhibit g -- >> i do not have that in front of me. vice president garcia: one
12:49 am
question, it appears with exhibits g, two notices were sent to the hernatis. >> we are not allowed it to customize the addresses. what comes from the assessor's office is what we have to go with, it is my understanding. vice president garcia: and then the june 17 notice has to do with the actual permit? >> g-7 team? vice president garcia: -- june 17? vice president garcia: 2010. >> i believe that is the actual permit, but in that same time frame, well, one easy way to
12:50 am
explain this because we have a permit and a very it's very close together. this is a variance notice if it is a 150. if it is a standards section 311 notification, -- we have both in that time frame. that is why i am not without the notice in front of me able to answer your question exactly. we had numerous notices issued during this process. vice president garcia: we know that the june 17 is the 312. >> that sounds correct. vice president garcia: and then the other one no longer requires a variance and has been withdrawn because we have no data on who was noticed on that. >> that was withdrawn on a
12:51 am
variance hearing at the august hearing of this year, and that takes that fire stair in question and put it in the existing envelope of the building on the south side of the building. vice president garcia: so a variance hearing was held. >> no, it was not. he can explain. sorry. vice president garcia: that is what i think i said. ok, i think i understand it a little bit better. director goldstein: we can take some departmental comment? >> good evening, and thank you, president goh, member is of the board. scott sanchez, planning department. there is a poster that goes up on the subject property 20 days before the hearing, and it is also associated with something
12:52 am
that goes to all owners 10 days prior to the hearing. the section 311 neighborhood notification is a emailed notice and posted notice for 30 days that goes to all owners and occupants -- the section 311 née from -- neighbor notification is a mailed notice. there is something the project sponsor provides to us, and if i am not mistaken, this is the same company that may not provide a notice for this, but it would be in a similar fashion. it would be conducted in a similar fashion, and they get their information from the assessor's office. over the course of history of this project, four notices, as we have just gone through. there have been three or four variances. one was the summer, where the
12:53 am
project was subsequently modified, and the hearing was not held, but the hearing had been conducted. there are cases in 2009 and 2010, as well, and we believe the proper notification was done for all of those cases. the change in the mailing address may not have occurred in the department records until 2010. we would have to try to verify with the assessor's office what the change was that to place -- when the change took place. these applications were submitted before february 2010, which appears when the change in the mailing address may have occurred. that said, one would typically have a forwarding address when they do change and a dress with anyone, so if they had moved in early 2010 and updated their mailing address which the assessor's office, they would have assumed that they would
12:54 am
have made similar arrangements with the post office to have the address forward to wherever they were -- forwarded to wherever they were. we believe notification was done. there had been contact with department staff. i did hear back from the planner on the case, who indicated they had communicated but it appeared they had not met. he had asked them to make an appointment to meet, but they had several times not made an appointment, just came in to try to see him, and he was not available, so, unfortunately, it seems that they may not have been able to connect in person. i did bring the two variance files, and i was actually surprised when just reviewing the file again for the 2009, i just did this before i came over, and the 2009 case file, there is a request for document review that was submitted by the jurisdiction requester, and that
12:55 am
was from 2009. this was prior to the first variance hearing from the case. i can put that on the overhead. i have not had the opportunity to provide this for a the requester. -- provide this to the requester. so this indicates that the subject variance dog it was reviewed -- dock it -- docket was reviewed, but there is no reason why they did not request more or file an appeal or jurisdiction request. commissioner peterson: do they have to give their address on this? >> no. they requested to take a look at the dock it. -- docket. they come in. there is usually an id check to
12:56 am
verify the correct person, and then they review the materials, and once it is completed and stamped, as it was here, reviewed and completed, i believe that is actually a signature, and verify that there was a driver's license, i do not know if there is anything else i can add. vice president garcia: the thing having to do with exhibits g -- exhibit g, the permit holder's brief, is it unusual that these are not dated? >> actually, they are dated in terms of the preparation. i will put on the overhead, one that was for -- that was for the
12:57 am
following one, h. it does indicate, it is signed the person that prepared its. >> i meant to the individual sheets, but it was noticed at jackson and the second list. tara hill? >> section 311, a notification materials, it would have the sacramento address that would be intended to target the occupant, and the owner address. that would explain why that would be on there. commissioner garcia: is there any scenario you can develop
12:58 am
where it is effective? -- defective? >> no. >> the variance for which you put on the overhead, a request to review the file, it was dated in 2009. i thought the jurisdiction request was for -- >> i thought this was for a jurisdiction variants. i thought they requested -- and cut their requested jurisdiction on both variants. >> the permit is for -- can i
12:59 am
see something? >> i don't have any record of them reviewing the file. >> then that is not relevant. >> they had no knowledge of any variants. >> what they are here for is the variants in 2010. this is getting confusing to me, so i want to make sure i get everything straight. >> i have another question about the survey. each has an affidavit. my question is, would you expect to see that? >> there would be an affidavit prepared


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on